The Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Initiative (EZ/EC), funded by Congress in 1994, offered geographically targeted funding and tax incentives to distressed urban communities in the US. The mandated community involvement component of the programme was meant to separate it from traditional economic development initiatives, aligning it more fully with the core goals of community economic development. Did the programmatic strategies emphasise economic development more than fostering community partnerships or vice versa? The paper examines how much emphasis was actually placed on fostering community partnerships in the programme. It also assesses how effective this initiative was at achieving socioeconomic gains. Findings indicate that the more traditional community and economic development strategies received the majority of funding, despite the mandated requirement of building community partnerships. Nevertheless, the initiative resulted in modest decreases in poverty and unemployment. The lack of emphasis on the fostering of community partnerships in Chicago's zone did not render the initiative ineffective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Capraro, J. (2004) Community organizing, community development and community transformation, Journal of Urban Affairs, 26(2), pp. 151-161.
2.
Chaskin, R. (2001) Building community capacity: a definitional framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative, Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), pp. 291-323.
3.
City Of Chicago (1994) Empowering Chicago's citizens: empowerment zoneChicago. Office of the Mayor, City of Chicago.
4.
City Of Chicago (2005) Final Renewal communities/empowerment zones/enterprise communities (RC/EZ/EC) performance measurement system reports (PERMS). Office of the Mayor , City of Chicago.
5.
Dehejia, R. and Wahba, S. (1998) Causal effects in non-experimental studies: re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
6.
Diprete, T. and Gangl, M. (2004) Assessing Bias in the Estimation of Causal Effects: Rosenbaum Bounds on Matching Estimators and Instrumental Variables Estimation with Imperfect Instruments. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7.
Fraser, J., Kick, E. and Williams, P. (2003) Neighborhood revitialization and the practice of evaluation in the United States: developing a margin research perspective , City and Community, 1(2), pp. 223-244.
8.
Frisch, M. and Servon, L. (2004) Community development since rebuilding communities: a review of the literature, the field, and the environment. Paper presented to the Association of Public Policy, Analysis and Management Conference, Atlanta, GA, October.
9.
Gao (Us General Accounting Office) (1998) Progress on economic development activities varies among empowerment zones. GAO/ RCED-99-29. US General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.
10.
Gills, D. and White, W. (1998) Community involvement in Chicago's empowerment zone, in: C. Herring, M. Bennett, D. Gills and N. Jenkins (Eds) Empowerment in Chicago: Grassroots Participation in Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation , pp. 14-70. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
11.
Gittell, M. and Newman, K. (1998) Empowerment zone implementation: community participation and community capacity. Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, The Graduate School and University Center ofThe City University of New York.
12.
Gittell, M., Bockmeyer, J., Lindsay, R. and Newman, K. (1996) The urban empowerment zones: community organizations and community capacity building. Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center, The Graduate School and University Center ofThe City University of New York.
13.
Herring, C. (1998) A tale of two cities? Profiles of Chicago's empowerment zone residents and non-zone residents, in: C. Herring, M. Bennett, D. Gills and N. Jenkins (Eds) Empowerment in Chicago: Grassroots Participation in Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation, pp. 71-97. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
14.
Hud (US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT) (1997) The state of the cities. HUD, Washington, DC.
15.
HUD (2000) Selected PD & R data sets with Land-View, Vol. III. HUD, Washington, DC.
16.
HUD (2001a) Interim assessment of the empowerment zones and enterprise communities (EZ/EC) program: a progress report. HUD, Washington, DC.
17.
HUD (2001b) Application guide: empowerment zone program. HUD, Washington, DC.
18.
HUD (2002) Renewal communities/empowerment zones/enterprise communities performance measurement system (PERMS) training manual. HUD, Washington, DC.
19.
Jargowsky, P.A. (1997) Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
20.
Jenkins, N. and Feingold, K. (1998) Chicago's empowerment zone: a chronology of events , in: C. Herring, M. Bennett, D. Gills and N. Jenkins (Eds) Empowerment in Chicago: Grassroots Participation in Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation, pp. 98-107. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
21.
Lalonde, R. (1986) Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data, American Economic Review , 76, pp. 604-620.
22.
Massey, D.S. and Denton, N. (1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Mccarthy, J. (2003) Regeneration and community involvement: the Chicago empowerment zone, City,7(1), pp. 95-105.
24.
Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute Of Government ( 1997) Empowerment zone initiative: building a community plan for strategic change: findings from the first round assessment. State University of New York, Albany, NY.
25.
Notice of designation of empowerment zones and enterprise communities (1995) Fed. Reg pp. 10018-10019 (Docket No. R-95-1702; FR-3580-N-06) 23 February.
26.
Oakley, D. and Tsao, H. (2007) Socioeconomic gains and spillover effects of geographically targeted initiatives to combat urban distress: an examination of Chicago's empowerment zone, Cities,24(1), pp. 43-59.
27.
Oakley, D. and Tsao, H. (2006) A new way of revitalizing urban communities? Assessing the impact of the federal empowerment zone program, Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(5), pp. 443-471.
28.
O'Keefe, S. (2004) Job creation in California's enterprise zones: a comparison using a propensity score model, Journal of Urban Economics, 55, pp. 131-150.
29.
Ott, S. ( 1995) Chicago's empowerment zone, The Advocate's Forum,1(2), pp. 1-4.
30.
Riposa, G. (1996) From enterprise zones to empowerment zones: the community context of urban economic development, American Behavioral Scientist, 39(5), pp. 536-552.
31.
Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika,70(1), pp. 41-55.
32.
Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score, The American Statistician, 39(1), pp. 33-38.
33.
Rubin, D.B. (1980) Bias reduction using Mahalanobis-metric matching , Biometrics, 36, pp. 293-298.
34.
Smith, J. and Todd, P. (2003) Does matching overcome Lalonde's critique of non-experimental estimators?National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
35.
Stegman, M. (1995) Recent US urban change and policy initiatives, UrbanStudies, 32(1), pp. 1601-1607.
36.
Story-Stewart, M., Sendzik, M. and Schuh, A. (1998) Citizen participation in Chicago's application for empowerment zone and enterprise community status, in: C. Herring, M. Bennett, D. Gills and N. Jenkins (Eds) Empowerment in Chicago: Grassroots Participation in Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation, pp. 108-152. Chicago, IL : University of Illinois Press.
37.
Theodore, N. (1998) Jobs and poverty: alleviation in Chicago's empowerment zone, in: C. Herring, M. Bennett, D. Gills , and N. Jenkins (Eds) Empowerment in Chicago: Grassroots Participation in Economic Development and Poverty Alleviation , pp. 183-207. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
38.
Us Office Of The Inspector General (1999) HUD's oversight of the empowerment zone program: multi-location review. Region V (99-CH-156-0001). Office of Audit, Chicago, IL.
39.
Wilson, W.J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
